I am Tosk wrote:
In article ,
says...
On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 23:39:12 -0500, Jim wrote:

The lady had to lay off the teachers she couldn't afford to pay. If she
couldn't get more money budgeted to avoid the layoff, what other options
did she have?
I'm fairly familiar with situations like this living with a Union
official as I do. It's becoming more and more common to
superintendents to over hire, claim poverty, then lay off the highest
paid teachers (assuming that they don't have a contract that RIFs by
seniority rather than teaching assignment) keeping the newer lower
paid teachers to replace them.

Frankly, I think it's unethical.

I think anything that breaks the chain of union destruction, is good for
industry.. Nothing personal..


Hehehe...this from a schmuck who couldn't hold down a unionized job as a
warehouse worker.


--
If you are flajim, herring, loogy, GC boater, johnson, topbassdog, rob,
achmed the sock puppet, or one of a half dozen others, you're wasting
your time by trying to *communicate* with me through rec.boats, because,
well, you are among the permanent members of my dumbfoch dumpster, and I
don't read the vomit you post, except by accident on occasion. As
always, have a nice, simple-minded day.

On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 23:55:10 -0500, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:

On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 23:39:12 -0500, Jim wrote:

The lady had to lay off the teachers she couldn't afford to pay. If she
couldn't get more money budgeted to avoid the layoff, what other options
did she have?

I'm fairly familiar with situations like this living with a Union
official as I do. It's becoming more and more common to
superintendents to over hire, claim poverty, then lay off the highest
paid teachers (assuming that they don't have a contract that RIFs by
seniority rather than teaching assignment) keeping the newer lower
paid teachers to replace them.

Frankly, I think it's unethical.

If that's what she did, I agree. But, if she manipulated the budget to
get rid of crap teachers without tangling with the union for every one
of them, then more power to her.
--

John H

In article ,
om says...

On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 23:55:10 -0500, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:

On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 23:39:12 -0500, Jim wrote:

The lady had to lay off the teachers she couldn't afford to pay. If she
couldn't get more money budgeted to avoid the layoff, what other options
did she have?

I'm fairly familiar with situations like this living with a Union
official as I do. It's becoming more and more common to
superintendents to over hire, claim poverty, then lay off the highest
paid teachers (assuming that they don't have a contract that RIFs by
seniority rather than teaching assignment) keeping the newer lower
paid teachers to replace them.

Frankly, I think it's unethical.

If that's what she did, I agree. But, if she manipulated the budget to
get rid of crap teachers without tangling with the union for every one
of them, then more power to her.

Just because you have been there for 20 years or more doesn't mean you
get to sit on your fat lazy ass and wait out your retirement date due to
"tenure."

On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 14:11:46 -0500, Gene
wrote:

On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 13:47:53 -0500, John H
wrote:

On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 23:55:10 -0500, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:

On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 23:39:12 -0500, Jim wrote:

The lady had to lay off the teachers she couldn't afford to pay. If she
couldn't get more money budgeted to avoid the layoff, what other options
did she have?

I'm fairly familiar with situations like this living with a Union
official as I do. It's becoming more and more common to
superintendents to over hire, claim poverty, then lay off the highest
paid teachers (assuming that they don't have a contract that RIFs by
seniority rather than teaching assignment) keeping the newer lower
paid teachers to replace them.

Frankly, I think it's unethical.

If that's what she did, I agree. But, if she manipulated the budget to
get rid of crap teachers without tangling with the union for every one
of them, then more power to her.

Then before you said, "good on her" you should have done just a
*little* bit of homework:

Like.... one might question why she hired 900 new teachers in the
summer to fire nearly half that many a few months later... even though
many could document good APRs....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...101001956.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...101403564.html

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/dc/...sacked_in.html

Did you not see the word 'if' in my post?

Were you feeling hypercritical yesterday? Bad dinner?

New teachers are often contracted as colleges graduate in the spring.
They are brought on board during the summer for new teacher
orientations, paperwork, learning the county requirements for grading,
etc, and the software that goes with it all.

As to your second site, the 'corrections' seem to obviate reading the
article.

Having worked with a teacher who got herself certified through the
National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBCT), I can only
say I'm not overly impressed. It is a program in which one
self-enrolls and provides a nice document to hang on an 'I Love Me'
wall. But, it doesn't make one a better teacher.
--

John H

On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 22:18:50 -0500, Gene
wrote:

On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 09:59:52 -0500, Jim wrote:

John H wrote:
...but it looks as though Ms Rhee is actually trying to improve the
education process in Washington DC.

http://tinyurl.com/yls4e3l

Good on her.

There really is a god looking after us.

Black eye for the unions, putting their members before education. Shame
on them.

Amen, brother! Fire the rest of those teachers, free up the budget,
and let the little *******s teach themselves. Clearly the only way for
one interested in "actually trying to improve the education process in
Washington DC."

???
--

John H

In article ,
says...

On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 13:45:43 -0500, John H
wrote:

On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 22:18:50 -0500, Gene
wrote:

On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 09:59:52 -0500, Jim wrote:

John H wrote:
...but it looks as though Ms Rhee is actually trying to improve the
education process in Washington DC.

http://tinyurl.com/yls4e3l

Good on her.

There really is a god looking after us.

Black eye for the unions, putting their members before education. Shame
on them.

Amen, brother! Fire the rest of those teachers, free up the budget,
and let the little *******s teach themselves. Clearly the only way for
one interested in "actually trying to improve the education process in
Washington DC."

???

What ??? You said "it looks as though Ms Rhee is actually trying to
improve the education in Washington DC." Since this is accomplished
by firing teachers to balance the budget.... obviously.....

the way to improve education is to fire teachers, save money, and make
students responsible for teaching themselves! Apparently, there is no
alternative.... or that was the best approach... that IS the way "to
improve the education in Washington DC," isn't it?

Getting rid of dead weight is Ms. Rhee's objective.

In fact she has told the DC board of education to fire her if they don't
like what she is doing. The school system, any school system, should
does not exist to keep the NEA happy.

On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 19:16:15 -0500, Gene
wrote:

On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 13:45:43 -0500, John H
wrote:

On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 22:18:50 -0500, Gene
wrote:

On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 09:59:52 -0500, Jim wrote:

John H wrote:
...but it looks as though Ms Rhee is actually trying to improve the
education process in Washington DC.

http://tinyurl.com/yls4e3l

Good on her.

There really is a god looking after us.

Black eye for the unions, putting their members before education. Shame
on them.

Amen, brother! Fire the rest of those teachers, free up the budget,
and let the little *******s teach themselves. Clearly the only way for
one interested in "actually trying to improve the education process in
Washington DC."

???

What ??? You said "it looks as though Ms Rhee is actually trying to
improve the education in Washington DC." Since this is accomplished
by firing *worthless* teachers.

the way to improve education is to fire *worthless* teachers, save money, and make
students responsible for *trying to learn*! Apparently, there is no
alternative.... or that was the best approach... that IS the way "to
improve the education in Washington DC," isn't it?

Now that I've fixed your boo-boos, yes.
--

John H